Hey - did you know if you click on the title of a thread it will take you to the first unread post since you last visited that thread?
but were afraid to ask: 
STOP!! Never post your email address in open forums. Bots can "harvest" your email! If you must share your email use a Private Message or use the 
smilie in place of the real @
Pretty Please - add it to our Events forum(s) and add to the calendar! >> 
TheSearcherMan
Jedi Trainee
Offline
Hardness Testingfind
We need
We need
-
Hey Guest!
British Car Forum has been supporting enthusiasts for over 25 years by providing a great place to share our love for British cars. You can support our efforts by upgrading your membership for less than the dues of most car clubs. There are some perks with a member upgrade!**Upgrade Now**
(PS: Upgraded members don't see this banner, nor will you see the Google ads that appear on the site.)
Hardness Testingfind
- Thread starter TheSearcherMan
- Start date
Share this page
SilentUnicorn
Yoda
Offline
Re: Hardness Testingfind
https://www.microphotonics.com/surflab.html?gclid=CK7GoYa6gZQCFRJexwodDzZQVw
https://www.qcml.com/?gclid=CNu5pZ26gZQCFQguHgodpVBOWA
https://www.alcoa.com/howmet/en/service_category.asp?cat_id=13
https://www.ep-labs.com/
there are lots of places..
mark
https://www.microphotonics.com/surflab.html?gclid=CK7GoYa6gZQCFRJexwodDzZQVw
https://www.qcml.com/?gclid=CNu5pZ26gZQCFQguHgodpVBOWA
https://www.alcoa.com/howmet/en/service_category.asp?cat_id=13
https://www.ep-labs.com/
there are lots of places..
mark
T
Tinster
Guest
Guest
Offline
Re: Hardness Testingfind
Moe's Hardness Test!!
https://www.imdb.com/media/rm7903232/nm0002935
TheSearcherMan said:
Moe's Hardness Test!!
https://www.imdb.com/media/rm7903232/nm0002935
OP
TheSearcherMan
Jedi Trainee
Offline
Re: Hardness Testingfind
Somehow or another my post got messed up. Anyhow, I have found a cam grinder that does testing in CA. Wish he were closer. He does this all the time. I will be shipping them tomorrow. I have 1500 bucks tied up in lifters and cams right now, ordered another cam from GB, and was told that if I don't use their lifters and have a problem, it won't be on them. This cost just shy of 800 bucks. The place I got the suspect lifters from isn't telling me much, other that they will take a look at it, and go from there. Be careful where you get your lifters guys, they are still having problems. I can't run my mouth to much now, cause I want my money back. The problem is the warranty is out before you know they are no good, and they know this.
Somehow or another my post got messed up. Anyhow, I have found a cam grinder that does testing in CA. Wish he were closer. He does this all the time. I will be shipping them tomorrow. I have 1500 bucks tied up in lifters and cams right now, ordered another cam from GB, and was told that if I don't use their lifters and have a problem, it won't be on them. This cost just shy of 800 bucks. The place I got the suspect lifters from isn't telling me much, other that they will take a look at it, and go from there. Be careful where you get your lifters guys, they are still having problems. I can't run my mouth to much now, cause I want my money back. The problem is the warranty is out before you know they are no good, and they know this.
swift6
Yoda
Offline
Re: Hardness Testingfind
Sort of related to the whole failure thing. I was speaking to a friend of mine that is the shop manager for a high performance Porsche shop near Boulder. He told me tonight that they have had five(5) new model Porsche's that have had problems with cams and bearing materials. Number five, that came in today, was a brand new Cayman that had just been out for its first track day outing with the PCA. Came in for an oil change and it had bearing material in the oil. This was not from break in as it had more than 3,000 miles on it before it went to the track day. Porsche claims it is directly related to lack of ZDDP. The owner was using Amsoil because the rep and Amsoil swore that it had the right amounts of ZDDP in it. Evidently it didn't. They have also had a few BMW race and street cars with cam failures. There shop now uses Redline oils exclusively and have had no problems with any of their customers cars using Redline oils. Whether they are on the street or track, it hasn't mattered with the Redline. The Redline reps say they won't take it out, because they are not worried about having the S? rating on their product.
Just FYI for the whole issue.
Sort of related to the whole failure thing. I was speaking to a friend of mine that is the shop manager for a high performance Porsche shop near Boulder. He told me tonight that they have had five(5) new model Porsche's that have had problems with cams and bearing materials. Number five, that came in today, was a brand new Cayman that had just been out for its first track day outing with the PCA. Came in for an oil change and it had bearing material in the oil. This was not from break in as it had more than 3,000 miles on it before it went to the track day. Porsche claims it is directly related to lack of ZDDP. The owner was using Amsoil because the rep and Amsoil swore that it had the right amounts of ZDDP in it. Evidently it didn't. They have also had a few BMW race and street cars with cam failures. There shop now uses Redline oils exclusively and have had no problems with any of their customers cars using Redline oils. Whether they are on the street or track, it hasn't mattered with the Redline. The Redline reps say they won't take it out, because they are not worried about having the S? rating on their product.
Just FYI for the whole issue.
swift6
Yoda
Offline
Re: Hardness Testingfind
They were sending the Amsoil from the car out for testing. The other four newer Porsche's that had issues also had the oil tested and were found lacking. Same with the BMW's. Evidently the Germans didn't get the memo from the EPA. :wink:
Just relating that our older cars are not the only ones experiencing problems.
TR3driver said:
They were sending the Amsoil from the car out for testing. The other four newer Porsche's that had issues also had the oil tested and were found lacking. Same with the BMW's. Evidently the Germans didn't get the memo from the EPA. :wink:
Just relating that our older cars are not the only ones experiencing problems.
OP
TheSearcherMan
Jedi Trainee
Offline
Re: Hardness Testingfind
Well, if it was oil related, I would expect all the lifters to be damaged. As it is, one is absolutely destroyed, I may post a pic. One is terrible, and some others the hardness is just starting to chip off, and a few look fine. I finally found a local place to do the testing at about 6 am Monday morning, so then I will know. If I still have them, I also plan to have one of the original lifters tested at the same time. You know what really hurts, I spoke to a cam grinder in CA, he does testing all the time, and with a written report, he only wants 20-30 bucks, and the local guy, he only wants 20 bucks, and will do it while I wait. This is for Rockwell C scale testing, which uses a diamond tipped "punch". So, if it is that cheap, what does this say about the suppliers? Its all about the cabbage. And, I did just by chance find the place that does tests on MGB lifters for one of the major suppliers, he said 5 out of 500 test bad, it only takes one.
Well, if it was oil related, I would expect all the lifters to be damaged. As it is, one is absolutely destroyed, I may post a pic. One is terrible, and some others the hardness is just starting to chip off, and a few look fine. I finally found a local place to do the testing at about 6 am Monday morning, so then I will know. If I still have them, I also plan to have one of the original lifters tested at the same time. You know what really hurts, I spoke to a cam grinder in CA, he does testing all the time, and with a written report, he only wants 20-30 bucks, and the local guy, he only wants 20 bucks, and will do it while I wait. This is for Rockwell C scale testing, which uses a diamond tipped "punch". So, if it is that cheap, what does this say about the suppliers? Its all about the cabbage. And, I did just by chance find the place that does tests on MGB lifters for one of the major suppliers, he said 5 out of 500 test bad, it only takes one.
angelfj1
Yoda
Offline
Re: Hardness Testingfind
"he said 5 out of 500 test bad, it only takes one."
2 sigma (0.990000)for a commodity isn't so bad. Unless you are the one with the bad one. This is what quality control is all about. I am sure that Roger Penske would expect six sigma (0.9999990)or better.
Seems to me that it would be worth asking your supplier if he would accept the return of a sub par lifter or cam, if a recognized tester supplied a report (which you paid for). If the supplier balks, take your business elsewhere! It's more than your investment in the parts. What about the labor and the time without your LBC!!!
"he said 5 out of 500 test bad, it only takes one."
2 sigma (0.990000)for a commodity isn't so bad. Unless you are the one with the bad one. This is what quality control is all about. I am sure that Roger Penske would expect six sigma (0.9999990)or better.
Seems to me that it would be worth asking your supplier if he would accept the return of a sub par lifter or cam, if a recognized tester supplied a report (which you paid for). If the supplier balks, take your business elsewhere! It's more than your investment in the parts. What about the labor and the time without your LBC!!!
OP
TheSearcherMan
Jedi Trainee
Offline
Re: Hardness Testingfind
Well, hardness testing is easy, and cheap. Why the cam/lifters failed is much more complex than a simple hardness test. That is what we know at this point. And then there are the motor oils. This is not easy, although it may seem so........
Well, hardness testing is easy, and cheap. Why the cam/lifters failed is much more complex than a simple hardness test. That is what we know at this point. And then there are the motor oils. This is not easy, although it may seem so........
tomshobby
Yoda
Offline
Re: Hardness Testingfind
Hardness testing only tells a part of the story. And while tests like Rockwell, Brinnel, Vickers, or Knoop are fine they deform the material and measure the deformation or crater. Scleroscope testers measure the rebound of a special shaped diamond hammer of a given weight and from a given height to determine hardness.
Compressive strength, fatigue strength, toughness, and brittleness are also properties that are very important in a cam and the lifters.
A lifter that has a high degree of hardness may attain that hardness with the cost of being very brittle. So the alloy is a very important part of the formula for quality lifters. The heat treating process that the lifters go through can determine much of the final properties. For instance to what temperature is the lifter heated, then how is the lifter cooled after it is heated. Some alloys need to be air cooled, some oil cooled and some water cooled, and some need to be wrapped to be protected from the atmosphere while cooling. Is it drawn back to reduce brittleness. Does the alloy tend to have toughness and compressive strength. And possibly the most important, does the alloy have fatigue strength, the ability to resist failure during repeated reversals of load.
And that only covers a small amount of the first 7 pages of the metallurgy text book I used when teaching introductory metallurgy theory and practice. It is so much more than hardness.
Hardness testing only tells a part of the story. And while tests like Rockwell, Brinnel, Vickers, or Knoop are fine they deform the material and measure the deformation or crater. Scleroscope testers measure the rebound of a special shaped diamond hammer of a given weight and from a given height to determine hardness.
Compressive strength, fatigue strength, toughness, and brittleness are also properties that are very important in a cam and the lifters.
A lifter that has a high degree of hardness may attain that hardness with the cost of being very brittle. So the alloy is a very important part of the formula for quality lifters. The heat treating process that the lifters go through can determine much of the final properties. For instance to what temperature is the lifter heated, then how is the lifter cooled after it is heated. Some alloys need to be air cooled, some oil cooled and some water cooled, and some need to be wrapped to be protected from the atmosphere while cooling. Is it drawn back to reduce brittleness. Does the alloy tend to have toughness and compressive strength. And possibly the most important, does the alloy have fatigue strength, the ability to resist failure during repeated reversals of load.
And that only covers a small amount of the first 7 pages of the metallurgy text book I used when teaching introductory metallurgy theory and practice. It is so much more than hardness.
AltaKnight
Jedi Knight
Offline
Re: Hardness Testingfind
Tom....
If I knew as much as you about metallurgy I don't think I'd be able to drive the car for the constant thoughts about something being ready break off!
Tom....
If I knew as much as you about metallurgy I don't think I'd be able to drive the car for the constant thoughts about something being ready break off!
angelfj1
Yoda
Offline
Re: Hardness Testingfind
Tom: Your post is very interesting. It's obvious that you know a lot about mechanical design and metallurgy. What I don't understand is this. These engines are based on a design from the late 1950's or early sixties, I believe. Presumably Triumph had all of the engineering sorted out 40 years ago. Even if they out-sourced valves, cams, lifters, etc, they must have had a reasonably comprehensive specification for these components. I don't recall ever hearing that these engines were anything but reliable. I wonder how a NOS cam or lifter would compare with a representative sample of aftermarket components. When an after-market engine component manufacturer decides to offer a Triumph cam or lifter, I can't believe that they would re-invent the wheel. Wouldn't they start with a sample of the OEM part? Then I would think they would decide what to modify if necessary to meet current need. If anything, don't we have newer, better alloys, heat treating techniques and non-destructive testing methodologies today. Don't modern QC methods keep a tight rein on materials, process, etc? So, what has changed? There seems to be a disconnect. Are critical steps being eliminated to improve profit? I hope not! Are these companies all incompetent? I don’t think so. Have the laws of physics regarding materials changed? Certainly not!
It sounds like some serious money is being spent by a number of people who frequent this forum. I'm not sure if they are getting the value they expected. Food for thought!
Tom: Your post is very interesting. It's obvious that you know a lot about mechanical design and metallurgy. What I don't understand is this. These engines are based on a design from the late 1950's or early sixties, I believe. Presumably Triumph had all of the engineering sorted out 40 years ago. Even if they out-sourced valves, cams, lifters, etc, they must have had a reasonably comprehensive specification for these components. I don't recall ever hearing that these engines were anything but reliable. I wonder how a NOS cam or lifter would compare with a representative sample of aftermarket components. When an after-market engine component manufacturer decides to offer a Triumph cam or lifter, I can't believe that they would re-invent the wheel. Wouldn't they start with a sample of the OEM part? Then I would think they would decide what to modify if necessary to meet current need. If anything, don't we have newer, better alloys, heat treating techniques and non-destructive testing methodologies today. Don't modern QC methods keep a tight rein on materials, process, etc? So, what has changed? There seems to be a disconnect. Are critical steps being eliminated to improve profit? I hope not! Are these companies all incompetent? I don’t think so. Have the laws of physics regarding materials changed? Certainly not!
It sounds like some serious money is being spent by a number of people who frequent this forum. I'm not sure if they are getting the value they expected. Food for thought!
Brosky
Great Pumpkin
Offline
Re: Hardness Testingfind
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:]It sounds like some serious money is being spent by a number of people who frequent this forum. I'm not sure if they are getting the value they expected. Food for thought![/QUOTE]
Being one of those who has spent serious money on an engine, I have thought about it and I hope that we did get value for our money.
Either sadly or happily, only time will tell.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:]It sounds like some serious money is being spent by a number of people who frequent this forum. I'm not sure if they are getting the value they expected. Food for thought![/QUOTE]
Being one of those who has spent serious money on an engine, I have thought about it and I hope that we did get value for our money.
Either sadly or happily, only time will tell.
OP
TheSearcherMan
Jedi Trainee
Offline
Re: Hardness Testingfind
Yea, you are right Brosky. I have been on the phone alot today. There are problems, where, I'm not sure. However, I think it is safe to say the cam blanks may not be all they could be. Most seem to come from Turkey, some from India possibly. One cam grinder apparently moved the lobes and dist. drive gear on the blanks he has made because his machinery wouldn't let him machine the gear if he left the lobes in the stanpart original locations, so he had them moved on the blank. You just can't go moving things in my opinion. That's appanently what happened in the case of the cam I just received and sent back. One supplier in th UK who was using this blank told me they found out about it the hard way, gear problems. Also, the lifters, even if they test the right hardness can be a problem, due to the wrong base material, or in some other engines the wrong crowning, or cam profiling. In another type engine, lifters that test 62, fail on the dyno in minutes. I somewhat know who is supplying what to who, for all the good it does me. Also, I mite ad, Kent told me my thinking was right, I should us the CP over the TR5. I guess this is because it is a tested and long proven design, and less strain on an already less than ideal designed valve train, and it offers better drive ability. My lifters test at 56, I won't talk about the cam tests, as it may not be fair. You can read what you want into that. I am being told that only the part of the lobe that raises the lifter on a chilled iron cam is hardened, and this is what I saw in the testing I had done. That part of the cam should test around 58 Rockwell. However, I guess, it is a somewhat delicate process, and sometimes, they "miss" with the chilling process. Then, when the profile is ground on the blank, they grind thru the hardened part, or it is too thin. Also, testing without putting a mark on the lifter or cam is very expensive, and I don't know who does it, but it can be done. And, regrinds are nothing but a problem, they can't be made hard enough if the hardened part is ground to thin, not even by nitrating. However, one supplier said if you could get the cam thru the break in process without damaging it, it would probably last many thousands of miles. I ordered an APT cam, and his hardened lifters, that should test around 58. I couldn't get a CP in any resonable time frame. The cam I ordered is one a friend of mine has in his car, and it idles perfect, and APT explained the whole deal about the blanks they use. So, I think, all things considered, based on the info I have, I did the right thing. Note, based on all the things I know at this time. My friends car has 20k miles on it, and he uses regular Castrol, without the Zinc, and has had no problems yet. I don't think he put any additive in the oil during break in either.
Yea, you are right Brosky. I have been on the phone alot today. There are problems, where, I'm not sure. However, I think it is safe to say the cam blanks may not be all they could be. Most seem to come from Turkey, some from India possibly. One cam grinder apparently moved the lobes and dist. drive gear on the blanks he has made because his machinery wouldn't let him machine the gear if he left the lobes in the stanpart original locations, so he had them moved on the blank. You just can't go moving things in my opinion. That's appanently what happened in the case of the cam I just received and sent back. One supplier in th UK who was using this blank told me they found out about it the hard way, gear problems. Also, the lifters, even if they test the right hardness can be a problem, due to the wrong base material, or in some other engines the wrong crowning, or cam profiling. In another type engine, lifters that test 62, fail on the dyno in minutes. I somewhat know who is supplying what to who, for all the good it does me. Also, I mite ad, Kent told me my thinking was right, I should us the CP over the TR5. I guess this is because it is a tested and long proven design, and less strain on an already less than ideal designed valve train, and it offers better drive ability. My lifters test at 56, I won't talk about the cam tests, as it may not be fair. You can read what you want into that. I am being told that only the part of the lobe that raises the lifter on a chilled iron cam is hardened, and this is what I saw in the testing I had done. That part of the cam should test around 58 Rockwell. However, I guess, it is a somewhat delicate process, and sometimes, they "miss" with the chilling process. Then, when the profile is ground on the blank, they grind thru the hardened part, or it is too thin. Also, testing without putting a mark on the lifter or cam is very expensive, and I don't know who does it, but it can be done. And, regrinds are nothing but a problem, they can't be made hard enough if the hardened part is ground to thin, not even by nitrating. However, one supplier said if you could get the cam thru the break in process without damaging it, it would probably last many thousands of miles. I ordered an APT cam, and his hardened lifters, that should test around 58. I couldn't get a CP in any resonable time frame. The cam I ordered is one a friend of mine has in his car, and it idles perfect, and APT explained the whole deal about the blanks they use. So, I think, all things considered, based on the info I have, I did the right thing. Note, based on all the things I know at this time. My friends car has 20k miles on it, and he uses regular Castrol, without the Zinc, and has had no problems yet. I don't think he put any additive in the oil during break in either.
tomshobby
Yoda
Offline
Re: Hardness Testingfind
It would be an almost certainty that Triumph had specifications for the material and process for their cams and lifters.
The problem probably arises when a foundry pours the castings to begin with. A foundry of any size would not pour a special alloy mix for such a small order. I once worked in a foundry that poured 300 tons a week. We had an excellent analysis lab and continually tested. How many cams would it take to make even a half ton which would have been to small to make a custom pour. And worse would be small foundries that do not have good testing labs or just can't. It is more likely that the blanks are made from a choice of "standard" blends that a foundry regularily pours. I wonder how many companies that produce cams and lifters have the ability to analyze the properties of the alloy in their raw material even if they know what they want.
Before I began my consulting business I was the night plant supervisor in a shop that was 7 acres under roof. We machined a large amount of stainless and with the quantities we ordered had a very hard time getting consistent properties in our raw material. And as manufacturing continues its decline here in the US it is getting worse.
All these things are true. But to make cheaper parts something has to go.
I actually feel that our best resource is the communication that goes on in the forums. I understand that it is trial and error but it may be the best method we have to find quality parts. I have also spent a lot on parts and am not happy with some of this. When suppliers realize we are closely watching they will figure it out for us.
What TheSearcherMan is doing is excellent and he is finding some good answers.
angelfj said:
It would be an almost certainty that Triumph had specifications for the material and process for their cams and lifters.
The problem probably arises when a foundry pours the castings to begin with. A foundry of any size would not pour a special alloy mix for such a small order. I once worked in a foundry that poured 300 tons a week. We had an excellent analysis lab and continually tested. How many cams would it take to make even a half ton which would have been to small to make a custom pour. And worse would be small foundries that do not have good testing labs or just can't. It is more likely that the blanks are made from a choice of "standard" blends that a foundry regularily pours. I wonder how many companies that produce cams and lifters have the ability to analyze the properties of the alloy in their raw material even if they know what they want.
Before I began my consulting business I was the night plant supervisor in a shop that was 7 acres under roof. We machined a large amount of stainless and with the quantities we ordered had a very hard time getting consistent properties in our raw material. And as manufacturing continues its decline here in the US it is getting worse.
angelfj said:
All these things are true. But to make cheaper parts something has to go.
I actually feel that our best resource is the communication that goes on in the forums. I understand that it is trial and error but it may be the best method we have to find quality parts. I have also spent a lot on parts and am not happy with some of this. When suppliers realize we are closely watching they will figure it out for us.
What TheSearcherMan is doing is excellent and he is finding some good answers.